THE SENATE

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, last month, I received a
lovely Christmas card from the Boys and Girls Club of Summerside signed by
children who take part in its programming. I was struck by the sheer number of
names and want to highlight the great work that the Boys and Girls Clubs are
doing across my home province. In Summerside, more than 100 Island children
participate in its licensed Afterschool program, which includes transportation
to and from five different schools. Last year it hosted nearly 300 summer
campers at three separate locations, providing kids aged 5 to 14 with sports,
arts and crafts, field trips, swimming and other community events.

At the Wellington and area club about 50 children take part in its
Afterschool program, and its summer camp last year saw about 100 members
participate in a variety of fun and educational activities.

In Charlottetown, almost 50 children and youth take part in the Afterschool
program, and the 2015 summer camp hosted about 50 children a day. The
Charlottetown club also has an evening drop-in centre for youth aged 16 to 29
that offers job-search and resume-writing help, hot meals, shower and laundry
facilities and more. Starting next week, it will be offering a GED assistance
program.

Last year the Charlottetown Club expanded its summer camp east to Montague,
where more than 60 children participated in fun activities: trips to the beach
and library, field trips and afternoons outside in the park. In the fall the
club opened a permanent location in the town and now provides after-school
programming to dozens of kids, with even more programming to come.

We are certainly fortunate on P.E.I. to have such opportunities for our
children and youth. No child will ever be turned away based on inability to pay,
and all Boys and Girls Club programming has educational components, including
literacy programs, even in the summer.

I would like to recognize the incredibly dedicated staff, volunteers and
supporters at these clubs across the Island. Every day they work hard to
implement Boys and Girls Clubs' core values of belonging, respect, encouragement
and support, working together, and speaking out. Please join me in wishing them
continued success in the future.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the Governor General's gallery of His Excellency
Daeshik Jo, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea, accompanied by Counsellor
Yungjoon Jo. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Martin.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I have the distinct privilege to rise today to speak about the first
anniversary of the implementation of the historic Canada-Korea Free Trade
Agreement, which was on January 1, 2016.

The signing of Canada's first Asia-Pacific trade agreement was realized
through the hard work, leadership and vision of the Right Honourable Stephen
Harper and former Ministers of International Trade Ed Fast, James Moore,
Stockwell Day, and their predecessors. Additionally, the new Ambassador of the
Republic of Korea, His Excellency Daeshik Jo, like his predecessors, also plays
a key role in deepening Canada-Korea relations in strategic and tangible ways.

Honourable senators, I truly believe this historic agreement was possible
because of the deep-rooted Canada-Korea relationship and firm foundation forged
in sweat, blood and tears, through the service of Canadian missionaries over a
century ago, and the service and sacrifices of Canadians during the Korean War
65 years ago. Over 26,000 Canadian men and women volunteered to defend a nation
they knew little about so far from home — 516 of them never again seeing their
beloved Canada, making the ultimate sacrifice fighting communist aggression and
fighting for the democratic freedoms that the people of South Korea enjoy today
and that Canadians value so much as well.

The sixty-fifth anniversary of the Korean War years began on June 25, 2015,
and will continue until July 27, 2018. In 2016, we will commemorate the
sixty-fifth anniversaries of the Battle of Kapyong in April and the Battle of
Hill 355 in November, along with the annual July 27 Korean War Veterans Day,
which marks the anniversary of the armistice.

Thanks to the previous Conservative government's concerted efforts to
implement the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement and under the stewardship of the
new government, Canada's economy stands to gain $1.7 billion, while increasing
Canadian exports to South Korea

by 32 per cent. With comparable but complementary economies, distinct assets
and resources, and a unique relationship built on service and sacrifice of
Canadians in Korea and Koreans in Canada, it's not only an important bilateral
relationship but also a friendship in the truest sense of the word.

Honourable senators, please join me in celebrating the first anniversary of
the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Enormous opportunities and benefits await
Canadian and Korean producers, exporters, importers, entrepreneurs and consumers
this year and in the years ahead. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the Governor General's gallery of The Honourable
Elaine Taylor, Deputy Premier of Yukon and Minister of Tourism and Culture,
Minister Responsible for Women's Directorate, Minister Responsible for the
French Language Services Directorate and His Worship Dan Curtis, Mayor of
Whitehorse. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Lang.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the Governor General's gallery of Elizabeth Anne
Morgan, Zachery Bell, Caroline Sparks, Geoffery Ray, Frederick Lloyd Muise,
Brenda Herchmer; and Timothy Van Dam; who are members of the Tri-Territorial
Recreation Training (TRT) project. The goals of the project are to help people
grow and be healthy, build strong families and communities, work with those who
are disadvantaged, protect the environment, enhance economic growth, and add to
the quality of life in northern communities. They are the guests of the
Honourable Senator Lang.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Daniel Lang: Colleagues, I'm pleased to rise and salute the
winners of the Arctic Inspiration Prize which was hosted last night by His
Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, and emceed by Peter Mansbridge
here in Ottawa, in conjunction with the annual showcase of the North.

The prize is recognition of Canada's Arctic, which is home to more than
100,000 northern Canadians, a majority of whom are indigenous peoples.

In 2012, Arnold Witzig and Sima Sharifi founded the Arctic Inspiration Prize
to recognize the extraordinary contribution of teams working to gather and
mobilize Arctic knowledge for the benefit of the Canadian Arctic, the Arctic's
people and Canada as a whole. It awards over $1 million each year to assist
deserving organizations in carrying out their mandates.

Colleagues, at the ceremony last night three finalists were recognized for
their contribution to the North.

Better Hearing in Education for Northern Youth was the recipient of a
$300,000 prize for their work to improve the lives of youth with hearing loss
living in the Baffin region of Nunavut, through a multi-pronged approach that
includes classroom-based sound amplification technology and professional
development for educators.

The second group that was recognized, and received a prize of $600,000, was
the Qaggiq organization for nurturing the Arctic performing arts. Qaggiq aims to
strengthen Arctic culture and subsequently improve resiliency, self-worth,
belonging and pride, particularly among youth at risk in the North. The Qaggiq
project proposes to nurture and develop the skills of performing artists and
arts administrators.

The third finalist, the Tri-Territorial Recreation Training Project, based
out of Yukon, received a prize of $600,000 for its work, which utilizes
recreation and sports to foster happiness and a better quality of life. In the
North we are facing significant issues related to obesity. This initiative aims
to empower people and communities across all three territories to enhance
individual, community and environmental well-being by strengthening the capacity
of recreation leaders in northern communities through the delivery of local and
online training programs.

The goals of the project are to help people lead a healthy lifestyle, build
strong families and communities, work with those who are disadvantaged, protect
the environment and improve the quality of our way of life in northern
communities.

I would like to recognize team leader Anne Morgan, Yukon's own Olympian Zach
Bell, as well as all the other partners and supporters who are here today, along
with the volunteers from across the three territories who contribute to making
this program an outstanding success.

Finally, in closing, I would like to thank His Excellency Governor General
David Johnston, Her Excellency Ms. Johnston and philanthropists Mr. Arnold
Witzig and Ms. Sima Sharifi for making this award possible.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Richard Alway, Praeses
(President) of the University of Toronto's Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies as well as Chair and Ontario representative of the Historic Sites and
Monuments Board of Canada. Dr. Alway is the guest of the Honourable Senator
Eaton.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Ghislain Maltais: Honourable senators, last Friday, I had the
honour of attending, as a representative of the Canadian Senate, a ceremony that
is rather rare in Canada, where two military veterans in my senatorial district
of Shawinegan were awarded a very special medal. Seventy years after their acts
of bravery, France recognized their tremendous contributions in the Second World
War.

I am talking about Georges Villemure and Albert Pellerin, who as young men
voluntarily enlisted in the military in 1942 at the ages of 17 and 18
respectively, joining the ranks of the 3rd Battalion, Canadian Engineers. They
participated in the Normandy landings, arriving not on June 8 but on June 9,
because they were assigned to bring supplies to the soldiers. As a result, they
travelled from Caen to Paris, from Paris to Ghent, Belgium, and then on to
Germany. They helped build the biggest bridges — the iron bridges — so that
General Patton's troops could cross the Rhine.

They came back to Canada and raised families, and believe it or not, they
still have not retired at the ages of 96 and 97. On the contrary, they visit
elementary schools in their region with the President of the Royal Canadian
Legion to make sure that young people remember why they live in a fully free
country today. These men sacrificed four years of their lives to defend not only
their country, but also the entire world, which was living under the threat of
Nazi rule at that time.

Honourable senators, I would like to thank the former commander of the 62nd
Regiment who did the necessary research and finally secured this medal, 70 years
later. It has been awarded to very few Canadian soldiers. I don't think that
France knew these men had survived, but they are still alive today. They are an
example to us all. It is thanks to them that we are here in an institution where
freedom and democracy reign. It is thanks to people like them and countless
others who sacrificed their youth or their lives. We need to remember their
heroic acts.

I want to acknowledge not only their contributions during the war, but also
their involvement in their respective communities after the armistice was
signed. These people conducted exemplary lives. They devoted their lives to
their families, of course, but also to their community and their business.
Today, they live peacefully and refuse to retire. I believe they are an example
to our young people. These two soldiers sacrificed their lives to defend their
country, Canada, so that we could keep this beautiful, great land.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, the 2014-15 Security Intelligence Review Committee
Annual Report, pursuant to section 53 of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service Act.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12-26(2)
of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal
Peoples, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the
Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament.

Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule
12-26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology, which deals with the expenses incurred by the
committee during the Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament.

Hon. Claudette Tardif: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12-26(2)
of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official
Languages, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the
Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to
examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty,
political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis
peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of
Canada; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31,
2017, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its
findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators,
having consulted with Senator Cowan, I give notice that, at the next sitting of
the Senate, I will move:

That, in order to allow the Senate to receive a Minister of the Crown
during Question Period as authorized by the Senate on December 10, 2015, and
notwithstanding rule 4-7, when the Senate sits on Wednesday, February 3,
2016, Question Period shall begin at 3:30 p.m., with any proceedings then
before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Question Period;

That, if a standing vote would conflict with the holding of Question
Period at 3:30 p.m. on that day, the vote be postponed until immediately
after the conclusion of Question Period;

That, if the bells are ringing for a vote at 3:30 p.m. on that day, they
be interrupted for Question Period at that time, and resume thereafter for
the balance of any time remaining; and

That, if the Senate concludes its business before 3:30 p.m. on that day,
the sitting be suspended until that time for the purpose of holding Question
Period.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): Honourable
senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, pursuant to section 1(2) of chapter 3:06 of the Senate
Administrative Rules, all committees have power, for the remainder of the
current session, to engage the services of such counsel and technical,
clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of their
examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and
estimates as are referred to them.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): Honourable
senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, pursuant to rule 12-18(2), for the remainder of this session, the
Standing Senate Committees on Human Rights, Official Languages, and National
Security and Defence be authorized to meet at their approved meeting times
as determined by the Opposition Whip and the Senate Liberal Whip on any
Monday which immediately precedes a Tuesday when the Senate is scheduled to
sit, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a
week.

Hon. Bob Runciman: Honourable senators, I give notice that, later this
day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be
authorized to examine and report on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's
criminal justice system and to review the roles of the Government of Canada
and Parliament in addressing such delays; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than March 31, 2017
and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings
until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Runciman, you're asking for leave?

Senator Runciman: I am.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Accordingly, it is ordered that this motion be
placed on the Notice Paper for later this day.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, for the remainder of the current session,

(a) when the Senate sits on a Thursday, it shall sit at 1:30
p.m. notwithstanding rule 3-1(1);

(b) when the Senate sits on a Wednesday, it stand adjourned at
4 p.m., unless it has been suspended for the purpose of taking a
deferred vote or has earlier adjourned; and

(c) where a vote is deferred until 5:30 p.m. on a Wednesday,
the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings, immediately prior to any
adjournment but no later than 4 p.m., to suspend the sitting until 5:30
p.m. for the taking of the deferred vote, and that committees be
authorized to meet during the period that the sitting is suspended.

Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next
sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be
authorized to examine and report on national security and defence issues in
Indo-Asia Pacific relations and their implications for Canada's national
security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished
by the committee on this subject during the Second Session of the
Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2017,
and that it retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180
days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. George Baker: I rise in Question Period according to rule 4-8(1),
which says that, during Question Period, a senator may, without notice, ask a
question of a committee chair on a matter relating to any of the activities of
the committee.

I'd like to ask a question to two chairs. The first is to the Chair of the
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence regarding a
substantial story that is in today's national news and in which he is quoted.

I want to say, Your Honour, that the reelected chair to that committee,
Senator Lang, has done an outstanding job in his position as chair of the
committee. He has treated senators who are not members of the committee with
equal courtesy when we attend those committee meetings, and he did it for me in
the last session. Now he did warn me twice about going on too long in my
preamble. I don't know why he did that, but my question involves the story,
which I'm sure he's aware of because he is quoted extensively. Two law
professors agree with him in the story. He was asked a question relating to the
reports from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, recent reports
concerning the oversight, I believe, of CSIS. The story is entitled, in one of
the national press: "Senators demand role on planned national security
committee."

(1430)

I wonder if you could bring senators up to date on these questions relating
to matters that have been dealt with by the committee and may be dealt with in
the future by the committee as it relates to this oversight issue.

Hon. Daniel Lang: Thank you, senator. First of all, I would like to
thank the members of the committee that saw fit to elect me as their chairman
and give me their confidence. I appreciated the support that was forthcoming.

The question outstanding, I believe, to Canada, the House of Commons and the
Senate is the commitment to create parliamentary oversight of the law agencies
and the intelligence community for Canada. It is a serious issue and is one that
I think all of us, as senators, should be very concerned about in view of the
events over the last number of years. Terrorism, and how it applies to us, is an
issue that is not going to go away; and it has global implications, not just
national ones, for every Canadian in our country.

That said, I felt it was important, after reconstituting our committee, that
we, as a Senate committee — and I as the spokesperson — make it very clear that
we expect to play a part in a parliamentary oversight committee for a number of
reasons. Obviously, the fact is that we have the responsibility, not unlike the
House of Commons, to review all legislation required in respect to ensuring
Canadians' public security is taken care of.

We also have, within this body, the expertise that can go a long way to
making such a body work on behalf of Canadians, if and when it is created. It is
very important, from the perspective of any such body, that representation comes
from the Senate, because we, as opposed to the House of Commons, have much more
longevity and security as far as our parliamentary positions are concerned.

To conclude, colleagues, I believe that senators playing an important part as
members of such a body will bring further confidence to that particular
organization so Canadians can feel that both houses of Parliament have been
recognized and will play a part. This will, I believe, bring down any
non-partisan approaches that could or might have been brought forward to that
committee as opposed to strictly membership from the House of Commons, which
could then be said, to be a strictly government committee.

Thank you for your question, senator. I am glad to see that I could get this
on the record.

Hon. George Baker: Chair, a recent report from the Standing Senate
Committee on National Security and Defence that was tabled in this chamber
suggested, from evidence heard before the committee which was not heard before
the committee in the House of Commons regarding Bill C-51 — and that was an
observation by the committee — that perhaps, according to certain witnesses,
charges that could have been laid were not laid in Canada because of the
circuitous route of laying charges. The police are not allowed to lay charges in
Canada, and under the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code CSIS is not
allowed to lay charges. These are recommendations that go up the line to the
chief of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the deputy, who consults
with the government prior to the laying of charges. This was observed in your
committee. It was not observed in the House of Commons committee.

Do you hope to revisit this matter in the future because it is of such
importance to Canadians?

Hon. Daniel Lang: To follow up on your question, senator, I have to
emphatically state that I believe this is an area of very serious concern for
all Canadians. There is a question of whether or not our judiciary is laying the
charges when necessary to ensure the adequate protection of every man, woman and
child in this country. The seriousness of terrorism cannot be understated, and
it cannot be understated how it is affecting this country.

I would like to say this: We did recommend that they make the necessary
administrative changes so that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when
appropriate, could move forward with charges. We did that in our recommendations
in the terrorism report that we made public outside of session this past
Parliament. It has not been tabled in this house as of yet. That is a decision
that would have to be taken at a later date. I would recommend that all senators
take the time to read that document, because I think it will bear the test of
time from the point of view of the recommendations. It is very short — 24 pages
with 24 recommendations — but I think it goes to many of the deep issues that
Canadians face.

I would also say that, from the perspective of Bill C-51, we made the same
observations when we went through that particular bill. We had very intensive
hearings. I think the Senate acquitted themselves very well on that
controversial bill.

The good news is that the government is committed to bringing forward some
amendments to Bill C-51. My hope is that in that review the government would
find another way of looking at that legislation and the recommendations that we
had put forward for the purposes of the bill.

I want to say to members that I will ensure that the ministers responsible
for the legislation will directly receive copies of those reports that were
issued by the Senate so that they can take them under review for their internal
decisions that will have to be taken. But when that legislation does come
forward, I want to assure you that my hope is that we, as a committee, will be
looking for areas such as this. If they have not addressed them, then we will
have fair opportunity to address them ourselves.

Hon. Serge Joyal: Thank you. I apologize to my dear friend Senator
Baker, but I would like to revert to the first subject he raised, which is the
oversight issue.

It is a very fundamental question for this chamber. In fact, it is in this
chamber that it was raised the first time in 2000, following the amendments,
that the Canadian government at that time, under former Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien, asked this chamber to do a pre-study of the bill in order to make sure
that Canada would be in a position to answer the particular political and
strategic context under which we found ourselves.

One of the key recommendations that we, at the time, made in that report —
and, again, it was December 2000. I look at my colleague Senator Fraser because
she was the chair of the committee leading the pre-study of those amendments to
the various Canadian statutes. The first recommendation we made was for
oversight. I remember it very well. It was with my colleague Senator Grafstein
at that time —

Senator Moore: That is right.

Senator Joyal: — and Senator Moore that we introduced such a section
in the report.

We have come back repeatedly with that recommendation in the various
incarnations of the special committee that studies anti-terrorism measures. As a
matter of fact, the last one was chaired by our esteemed former colleague
Senator Hugh Segal, who happened to contact me two weeks ago to remind me of
that report in which we centred our main recommendation on the need for
oversight. That report came after the Paul Martin government introduced
legislation — I think it was Bill C-61 — establishing an oversight mechanism.
When the former government took over, they preferred to choose another option,
for all kinds of reasons I will not debate this afternoon.

(1440)

During the last election campaign, as I am sure honourable senators noticed,
there was a specific pledge in the platform to establish an oversight mechanism.

Since you received the terms of reference from this chamber yesterday to
concentrate on a certain number of general studies, would you consider choosing
that very specific subject of oversight, looking at all the previous reports put
together by this chamber and coming back with an interim report to advise us
which system would be best to implement oversight under anti-terrorism activity
in Canada, with all the federal agencies involved? That is the specific question
I am addressing to you.

Hon. Daniel Lang: I appreciate the question. First, of course, I am
not in a position to commit the committee at this stage to any particular area
of study until we have made a decision as a committee. I know the issue was
raised by one of my colleagues as a possibility. There are a multitude of issues
out there, quite frankly, that deserve serious scrutiny.

The question that I will have as chair — and I am sure other senators will
have — relates to the commitment that has been made by the present government,
which has every intention within the next number of months of bringing forward
legislation creating such a body. The question that will have to be put to us is
whether we really have the time to have an effect on the actual writing of such
legislation.

That is an issue that will be discussed, but I want to assure the member
opposite that I am fully aware of the history of the creation of such a body for
the purposes of overseeing our intelligence and law enforcement communities. The
point is that the government has made a commitment, an election pledge, and then
followed it up with ministerial directives as well as public statements that
they intend to move forward on the issue. So I feel it imperative at this point
in the discussion to ensure that they realize we do have a role to play and we
will play that role.

I will bring your question forward to the committee the next time we meet,
because we will be looking at the various areas we intend to scrutinize over the
course of the coming months and even years.

Hon. George Baker: My next and last question is to the Chair of the
Rules Committee, another very capable chairperson, in the person of Senator
Fraser.

Given the questions of privilege that have to be dealt with by the Rules
Committee, could Senator Fraser bring us up to date on the activities of the
committee and where it stands today in pursuing its objectives?

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): Thank you for
the question, Senator Baker.

Before I reply to it, I wonder if I could use this time to thank Senator
Joyal for his retroactive, or maybe retrospective, promotion of me. I did not
chair the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism, on which we both served
and worked hard. Senator Fairbairn chaired it, but the work was, indeed, very
intensive. His recounting of our reasoning and conclusions is, of course,
entirely accurate.

With regard to Rules Committee, we had our organizational meeting, at which
the committee did me the honour of electing me as chair. I would take this
opportunity to thank Senator White for his extremely able chairmanship of that
committee in the last Parliament. He is, fortunately, deputy chair of the
committee now, so we will continue to benefit from his experience and guidance.

The steering committee has met, but the full committee has not yet met to
consider its agenda and future business. It would of course be grossly improper
of me to preempt the conclusions of the committee. We will do that next week, I
expect.

However, I would note that there are already on the floor of the Senate a
couple of motions for reference to the Rules Committee. One is following up on a
Speaker's ruling this week; namely, Senator Hervieux-Payette's motion to refer a
prima facie case of privilege to the Rules Committee involving leaks. And one is
Senator Wallace's motion for the Rules Committee to study the rules affecting
independent senators, if my memory serves.

We are all awaiting Speaker's rulings on a couple of other questions of
privilege. Should the Speaker find prima facie cases, it would be normal
practice for those, then, to be referred to the Rules Committee. As you know,
matters of privilege take precedence over anything else that we might be
interested in doing.

I would also note that the committee had done a great deal of work in the
last Parliament on a discussion paper concerning the broad topic of privilege
and how it is handled in Canada: what the law is; what the understanding of
"privilege" is; what other jurisdictions have done or are contemplating doing to
modernize their approach to privilege by taking into account modern life and
sensibilities without, of course, diminishing the core nature of privilege. That
is very important work, and I think it would probably be reasonable to assume
that the committee would continue to be interested in that work. As I say, I
don't want to prejudge what the committee decides to do.

However, a great deal of work had been done and a good discussion paper had
been produced. You may have seen it when it was brought to the Senate. Beyond
that, though, I can't be more precise.

Hon. Bob Runciman: I have a supplementary question for Senator Fraser
following Senator Carignan's notice earlier today about bringing ministers in
for Question Period.

Virtually every legislative chamber that I am aware of has time limits on
questions and responses. We have heard some lengthy intros and responses. I am
concerned somewhat, especially when we have ministers here, that more members of
the chamber have an opportunity to ask their questions and that the responses
are not "killing the clock," if you will.

I would encourage the Rules Committee, if it isn't looking at this, that it
do so because I think it would be important to ensure as broad a level of
participation as possible.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Hear, hear!

Senator Fraser: Thank you for the suggestion, Senator Runciman. Having
just given a fairly long answer myself, I feel guilty as charged.

This has not been, to the best of my knowledge, an item on the Rules
Committee's agenda. You can cut it both ways. At its best, the Senate Question
Period can lead to really fascinating and very instructive exchanges because we
don't have those cut-and-dried time limits that they have down in the house.

On the other hand, we have all seen questioners whose question runs to 15
minutes and whose supplementary question runs out the clock. I don't foresee
changing the rules in time to affect our session with the minister next
Wednesday, if we are fortunate enough to have one. I think we will have to rely
on our colleagues' sense of mutual respect for that event, but I take note of
your suggestion.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dyck, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-215,
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against
Aboriginal women).

Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak in
favour of Bill S-215, which would require courts to consider it an aggravating
circumstance if the victim of a violent crime was an Aboriginal female.

Yesterday, Senator Dyck made an extraordinary, touching and convincing case
for why this bill needs all of our support. It is worthwhile to repeat a few of
the points she made.

The proposals in this bill are similar to well-established Criminal Code
provisions where the victim is a police officer. Bill S-221, introduced by
Senator Runciman and passed into law last year, made assaults on taxi drivers
and other transit workers an aggravating circumstance as well.

The statistics are clear. The RCMP has reported that Aboriginal women and
girls are four times more likely to be murdered than their non-Aboriginal
counterparts. Overall, Aboriginal women are three times as likely to be victims
of violent assaults as non-Aboriginal women.

Undoubtedly, there are many factors that lead to these statistics: Men may
think Aboriginal women are easy prey; there is a certain innocence, perhaps, in
Aboriginal women, and not being aware of the dangers, the lifestyle and being
away from their environment. Sometimes girls from the North travel south to
cities like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa and places like that where they
are not aware of all of the circumstances and all of the dangers that lurk
there. Drinking, drugs and the environment that they are in all contribute to
Aboriginal women being at greater risk.

Racism and hate are sometimes behind some of these crimes, with Aboriginal
women targeted simply because they are Aboriginal.

In other cases, perpetrators have targeted Aboriginal women because they have
come to believe that society does not care about their welfare or safety. They
assume that they can escape justice because society just doesn't care.

These amendments will give the judge the ability to consider the
circumstances and consider an aggravating situation, which will probably result
in harder punishment given to the perpetrator.

The process to deal with this issue of murdered and missing women has begun.
The Prime Minister has announced an inquiry into this issue, and the Minister of
Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Carolyn Bennett, has begun the long process of
meeting with relatives of these women, and looking at the issues of how to
conduct the inquiry so that it is as effective as possible.

I met Minister Bennett in Yellowknife a number of weeks ago, and I could see
that people in the communities were really responding to her. People were coming
to meet with the minister and telling her about the issue and, I am sure,
helping her to figure out what the best way would be to conduct the inquiry.

I have no doubt that once the inquiry is under way, it will focus attention
on the issue, and people will see the extent to which there is pain, ache and
trauma in the lives of people who have had their daughters or sisters go
missing.

The latest figures from the RCMP are that there are 1,186 missing or murdered
Aboriginal women in the Northern territories. In the Yukon, there are 35
confirmed cases of missing and murdered indigenous women; there are 31 in
Nunavut and 14 in the Northwest Territories.

I have not had any personal experience with missing or murdered women. In the
past 10 years, however, I have had three experiences with missing men. I have no
doubt that the feelings, the trauma and the hurt are the same. The question of
what happened lingers day after day for months and years later. There is always
the question of what happened to a son or daughter or relative. There are a lot
of suspicious ideas of what may have happened, always the certainty that it did
not happen by itself, that someone did harm to the person, and there seems to
never be any closure. That is the trauma and experience that Aboriginal people
go through when they have a missing or murdered person.

Through this bill, honourable senators, we can do our part to say we do care
what happens to Aboriginal women, and we are going to do something about it.

One of the main purposes of the Criminal Code is to denounce acts and
behaviours that society finds unacceptable. The changes proposed will make it
clear that we find violence targeted at Aboriginal women repugnant. We will make
it clear that the lives of Aboriginal women and girls matter to us.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Fraser:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be
authorized to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate
under rule 12-7(6);

That it be further authorized to examine and report on the elements
related to its mandate found in the ministerial mandate letters of the
Minister of Transport, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and
the Minister of Canadian Heritage; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than June 30, 2017.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be
authorized to examine and report on:

(a) services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian
Forces; to veterans who have served honourably in Her Majesty's Canadian
Armed Forces in the past; to members and former members of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents; and all of their families;

(b) commemorative activities undertaken by the Department of
Veterans Affairs Canada, to keep alive for all Canadians the memory of
Canadian veterans' achievements and sacrifices; and

(c) continuing implementation of the New Veterans' Charter;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished
by the committee on this subject during the Fortieth Parliament and the
Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2017,
and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings
until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): First, I have
a question. I think Senator Lang was preempting me and was going to answer it
before I asked it. He knows me by now.

Senator Lang: I want to take a moment to tell you the purpose of the
motion. Unfortunately, Senator Day is not here to move the motion. I'm therefore
moving it in his name to set up the terms of reference for the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs so that they will have the authority to do the necessary work
with which they are charged, with direction from the Senate.

Senator Fraser: You're familiar with my standard question: Are we
talking about major budgetary implications here?

Senator Lang: At this time, colleagues, I'm not in a position to
answer that definitively, but if you look at the history of this particular
subcommittee, the financial commitments that have been made in respect to the
work they have done have been minimal compared to the value of the work that has
been presented to Senate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and
detailed response from the Government to the Ninth Report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled: The Importance of
Bee Health to Sustainable Food Production in Canada, tabled in the
Senate on May 27, 2015 and adopted on May 28, 2015, during the Second
Session of the Forty-first Parliament, with the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food being identified as minister responsible, in consultation with the
Ministers of Health and Finance, for responding to the report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be
authorized to examine and report on international market access priorities
for the Canadian agricultural and agri-food sector. The study will focus on:

(a) the expectations and concerns of stakeholders from the Canadian
agriculture and agri-food sector;

(b) sustainable improvements to the production capabilities of
the supply chain;

(c) diversity, food security and traceability; and

(d) the competitiveness and profitability of Canada's
agriculture and agri-food sector (including producers and processors).

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by
the committee on this subject during the Second Session of the Forty-first
Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than
March 31, 2017, and that the Committee retain until June 30, 2017, all
powers necessary to publicize its findings.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): Whenever
committees ask for authorization to conduct all kinds of grand studies, I tend
to ask some questions, usually about the budgetary implications.

Does your committee plan to travel, either in Canada or abroad, as part of
this study? What sort of budget are you seeking authorization for?

I do not oppose the topic of the study, but I want the Senate to understand
what is involved.

Senator Maltais: I will be pleased to answer, senator. Unfortunately,
I am not in a position to provide you with exact figures here today. A request
will be duly and properly submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on National
Finance.

We definitely do plan to travel within Canada, because our mandate requires
us to visit the Prairie region. We will meet with witnesses from Ontario and
Quebec in Ottawa, and we will travel to Moncton to gather evidence from the four
Maritime provinces. As for Western Canada, we might to go Calgary, Winnipeg or
Saskatoon. We don't know yet.

Decisions regarding travel in Canada and abroad will be made at our next
committee meeting. We need to verify a few things regarding certain free-trade
agreements, specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is to be signed
in the next few weeks. The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
wants to meet with some people regarding that agreement. Will that happen in a
specific country or as part of an international conference? That has not been
decided yet. Committee members are considering those very questions, and as soon
as any decisions are made, we will communicate them to the Senate and submit a
request for funding.

Senator Fraser: You are talking about the Asia-Pacific free trade
agreement. If I'm not mistaken, this could involve some travel that would be
extremely interesting in many respects and could involve considerable costs. We
may also be signing a free trade agreement with Europe. Do you plan on
travelling there?

Senator Maltais: Thank you for your question, Senator Fraser. We
haven't yet made a decision about Europe, since the agreement will not be signed
for a few years. It's still in progress. The Canadian government has announced
that the Asia-Pacific agreement will be signed in the coming weeks. We will
start by dealing with this agreement. It's a new agreement that will open new
markets to Canadian farmers and processors.

As you no doubt know, 2.6 million people work in the agri-food sector, and I
think this is a good way to create new jobs and opportunities.

However, we are not yet there, and to be honest, I don't think we will be
looking at the Europe agreement this year. We want to do a thorough study of the
new Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which will keep committee members rather
busy until the end of June.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

(c) Sustainable development and management of renewable and
non-renewable natural resources including but not limited to water,
minerals, soils, flora and fauna; and

(d) Canada's international treaty obligations affecting
energy, the environment and natural resources and their influence on
Canada's economic and social development.

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31,
2017 and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its
findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): This is
another of these motions that would enable the committee to do almost anything,
almost anywhere in the universe. Could you give us a slightly more precise idea
of what the committee is envisaging, Senator Neufeld? Believe me, I believe in
Senate committees; I'm not trying to limit what they do. But I also believe that
the Senate should be given some indication of what it is we are being asked to
approve. So I'm wondering if you could give us those travel plans, among core
elements.

Senator Neufeld: I appreciate the question, senator.

We just had our organization meeting. We want to ask the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development to come and talk about her reports.
That's basically what we need to get done. So we need something to facilitate
that.

We have not decided or even spoken yet about where we want to travel. It has
been my experience since I've been chair that regardless of whether we travel
within Canada or outside of Canada, we need to come to the Senate first to
approve that travel — and the budget along with it — and that's exactly what we
would do. We would not just travel the universe under this mandate without the
approval of the Senate regarding what we want to do, what we want to study and
the cost of it. We will maintain that procedure, as we have in past years.

Hon. George Baker: I wonder if the chair of the committee would
consent in the coming weeks to the use of Question Period to pursue these
matters and get the details of the activities of the committee, and does he
agree that perhaps Question Period is the place in which we can ask those
questions and the committee chairs can respond to them, as it's supposed to be
according to the rules?

Senator Neufeld: It would be my pleasure.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be
authorized to examine and report on the policies, practices, and
collaborative efforts of the Canada Border Services Agency in determining
admissibility to Canada and removal of inadmissible individuals;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished
by the committee on this subject during the Second Session of the
Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2016, and
that it retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days
after the tabling of the final report.

He said: Colleagues, the purpose of the motion is to be able to give us the
authority to table in this house the report that was completed in the last
Parliament. I should point out that it's a very short report but very important
to Canada with respect to the observations about the Canada Border Services
Agency. I would recommend all members take the opportunity to read it when it is
tabled in this house, especially in view of what's happening globally and
nationally with respect to the outstanding questions on all aspects of
immigration, including refugees.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be
authorized to examine and report on:

(a) the medical, social, and operational impacts of mental
health issues affecting serving members and veterans of the Canadian
Armed Forces and serving members and veterans of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, including operational stress injuries (OSIs) such as
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);

(b) the services and benefits provided to serving members and
veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and serving members and veterans
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police affected by OSIs, and to their
families;

(c) new and emerging technologies, treatments and solutions to
aid mental health conditions such as PTSD for serving members and
veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and serving members and veterans
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

(d) how those emerging technologies, treatments and solutions
can be integrated into the benefit and services already provided by
medical professionals working for National Defence and Veterans Affairs
Canada;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished
by the committee on this subject during the Second Session of the
Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2017,
and that it retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180
days after the tabling of the final report.

He said: Colleagues, this is a very straightforward motion. It's the same as
was presented in the previous Parliament. Before I conclude, it's the question
on the study of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is of concern to all
veterans. It's going to be an interesting report when it's concluded.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): I gather the
work has begun, so for this Parliament are you looking at more expenses? I can't
think of a more worthy subject, as I have said previously. It's not that I'm
opposed; I just want to know what we're voting for.

Senator Lang: I'm not in a position to give an outline in respect to
any travel that might arise from this particular study. To this point we've been
able to do it strictly by video conferencing and having witnesses here. There
may be one or two visits somewhere in the country, but that remains to be seen.
We'll report back to the house, similar to my colleague Senator Neufeld, at the
appropriate time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be
authorized to examine and report on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's
criminal justice system and to review the roles of the Government of Canada
and Parliament in addressing such delays; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than March 31, 2017
and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings
until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

He said: Honourable senators, the hope is that we're going to focus on delays
in criminal law proceedings, examining the scope of the problem and the time it
takes from a charge to a disposition. We're going to review research and listen
to experts to identify the legal policy and operational issues that lead to
delays. We're also going to look at the consequences of delays on victims, on
police operations and resources, and at the mental health issues, the value and
growth of specialized courts, and the positive impact that could have as well.

I read in an article recently that 60 per cent of individuals occupying cells
across this country have not been convicted of any offence but are there on
remand awaiting trial. So that's an indication of the significance of the
problems we have across the country. We hope that we can add value from the
Senate perspective in addressing many of those problems and assist the provinces
in addressing them as well.

Hon. Joan Fraser: I have the same question I put to everyone: This is
not a committee known for its expensive ways. I think once we chartered a bus to
go to an Ottawa suburb. Do you anticipate unusual expenditures, notably travel,
for this study?

Senator Runciman: One of the members of the steering committee
suggested today that we consider, perhaps during a break week, visiting a number
of municipalities with significant problems in court delays. For example,
Toronto was mentioned as one possibility, and even Ottawa as another. That
hasn't been firmed up yet, but it is certainly under consideration.

Hon. George Baker: Will the committee also be examining the number of
persons charged with an offence, and in some cases found guilty of an associated
offence, but have been freed totally under section 11(b) of the Charter,
which is trial within a reasonable time? That's in our Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Will the number of persons in Canada charged with very
serious crimes, who are in prison and then let go, free of any charge, because
our courts have not been able to deal with their case in a reasonable period of
time be one of the subjects that the committee will examine in detail?

Senator Runciman: I would certainly hope so. You are especially
familiar with Askov and the implications and the numbers of individuals
who are released from a multitude of charges. That is obviously a clear concern,
and continues to be a concern right across the country. It will be addressed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?